This is quite concerning

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -33 points 2 years ago (23 children)

Tear the government down, start from scratch.

As a bonus; we also solve the problem with having police.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    I can't wait to become the United States of Walmart. Thanks for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    Walmart can't do shit without the cops.

    And do you realize how much they're subsidized by the state? When has the state ever stopped Walmart from doing anything?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I thought we were starting over. What makes you think there won't be cops?

    A badly MSPainted, AI Generated police officer in Walmart with Walmart logos on his cap and badge, and holding an AR-15 assault rifle

    It's cute how people think scrapping the constitution and starting over will somehow make things better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    Imagine thinking the owning class wouldn't be the ones creating the new constitution...

    Something needs to change, but once we open that can of worms were going to see things like:

    "All citizens are required to give all personal data to meta whether using the platform or otherwise."

    "Oil will be enshrined as the National Energy Source™"

    "Union activity is an act of economic terrorism."

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Why do you think there will still be wal-mart?

    And why do you think the constitution binds anyone who matters? You're treating it like a fucking magic spell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (3 children)

    They are among the top five richest corporations in the world and the leading employer in the world, last I checked. You going to dissolve that power? No? They have money and power, they will make the rules. You have to either find a way to dissolve them (good luck with that!), or you have to have another big power structure to keep them in check. That's how it works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    This power structure is based on faith and agreement. Its more fragile and fractious than you think.

    And what the fuck are you smoking if you think the government is opposed to corps? Can I have some?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    How do you prevent it from turning into a "might makes right" system ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (12 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Is mutual aid more likely without a government?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children)

    Read 'a paradise built in hell'. Short answer: so fucking much more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Looked it up, it relates to the behavior after a natural disaster. I think that's quite a specific situation that gives everyone a common goal to work on for a relatively short period. I also think it suddenly interrupts a situation where there was a government, so people are still acting as citizens. Outside of such event, I am not sure people would work together as much. I can think of many examples where the weakening or absence of government leaves room for religious extremist organization (Irak under ISIS) or criminal organizations (Haiti currently) which are pretty much "might is right".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    You looked up a book. Therefore you know its contents.

    Okay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Sorry I didn't know you would think I had to spend a couple of days reading a book in order to be able to discuss your point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, but claiming you understand the idea well enough to argue it because you read the back cover is some "imagine a perfectly spherical organism... ...and now ive solved it, why do you even have a whole department?" first year physics student walking into a bio lab level arrogance.

    I don't even think you understand the principles and ideas that would make your idea of optimal social structure even remotely plausible, much less what I'm talking about with mine (given your unwillingness to even acknowledge them), and you clearly don't want to. Its not like youre going to tell me anything I haven't heard before. I feel like it's a good time for this conversation to end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I made the effort to look up your reference, so I could understand what you said. Did you ever make such effort with mines?
    Now instead of using those few lines to explain to me what I may have missed, you wrote those lines to attack me. I think you could have ended it before falling to such a low quality argumentative level.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Or just not being a dick and having community responses to power imbalances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments